Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026
Surgical Retrieval, Isolation and In vitro Expansion of Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament-derived Cells for Tissue Engineering Applications
Published on: April 30, 2014
Biomechanical comparison of anatomic double-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and nonanatomic single-bundle anterior
Eiji Kondo1, Azhar M Merican, Kazunori Yasuda
1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Background:
Although both anatomic double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures are in use, it remains controversial whether the anatomic double-bundle procedure is biomechanically superior.
Hypothesis:
The anatomic double-bundle procedure would be better than both laterally placed anatomic and nonanatomic transtibial single-bundle procedures at restoring to normal the tibial anterior translation, internal rotation, and pivot-shift instability. It was also hypothesized that tibial internal rotation would be closer to normal after laterally placed anatomic single-bundle reconstruction than after the nonanatomic reconstruction.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
Eight cadaveric knees were mounted in a 6 degrees of freedom rig and tested using the following loading conditions: 90-N anterior and posterior tibial forces, 5-N·m internal and external tibial rotation torques, and a simulated pivot-shift test. Tibiofemoral kinematics during the flexion-extension cycle were recorded with an optical tracking system for (1) intact, (2) anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee, (3) anatomic double-bundle reconstruction, (4) nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction, and (5) laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction.
Results:
Rotational laxity with internal tibial torque and anterior laxity in the simulated pivot shift were significantly less in the double-bundle reconstruction and laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction compared with the nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction. There were no significant differences between the 3 procedures when anterior and posterior tibial translation forces and external rotation torques were applied. In addition, there were no significant differences between the double-bundle reconstruction and laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction.
Conclusion:
The postoperative rotational and pivot-shift laxity after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was significantly better than that after nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction. However, there were no significant differences between the double-bundle reconstruction and laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction.
Clinical Relevance:
This work suggests that a single-bundle reconstruction may be better able to control both knee laxity and pivot-shift instability if the femoral tunnel is moved to a more lateral position and that then the double-bundle reconstruction may not offer significant further advantages.